Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< September 02	September 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Cyber Internet Services

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article also seems pretty promotional and mostly relies on sources tied to the organization or its subsidiaries, like stormfiber.com, which is a brand of this company. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and the cited sources are promotional. Lorstaking (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the largest ISPs in Pakistan. The citations and text need to be improved but the organisation is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 12:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Isoceles-sai, This was ATA:WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Not notable with almost nil SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it comes down to whether ProPakistani.pk and Dawn are reliable sources, since there is WP:SIGCOV in the articles already linked. They're not all promotional; some feature critical news. But I don't know enough to evaluate the reliability of those sources. Would be nice to have some commentary on the reliability of these sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn is the top English language newspaper in Pakistan. Very reliable, highest quality journalism.

ProPakistani is a technology focused media, reliable with no issues with factual content, but prone to publishing promotional material, and press releases. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following the comment above, a source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dawn is reliable per WP:NPPSG and there are quite a few Dawn articles that offer significant coverage of this company. ProPakistani.pk is listed as "no consensus" because there are concerns about undisclosed sponsored posts, so I wouldn't trust them for notability. Regardless, there is some coverage in other sources (ex: [1][2][3][4]) so I'm leaning towards a keep. C F A 💬 23:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. In light of the reliability of Dawn and the sigcov in it, plus the sources identified by CFA, I'll !vote keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA and Dclemens1971: Are the keep votes based on Dawn's non-byline coverage currently cited in the article, which is itself derived from press releases? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have this press release for us to compare? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, Based on your comment, it seems like you're relying heavily on Dawn's coverage to justify keeping this article. There are three Dawn articles cited, but the coverage is questionable. For example, this article is clearly marked as "PR" under the image caption, indicating it's likely based on a press release. This second news story only briefly mentions the subject [Cyber Internet Services] in the context of an incident at StormFiber, a subsidiary of the subject making it routine coverage. And the third article offers just a trivial mention of the subject. None of these provide in-depth coverage of Cyber Internet Services itself. Similarly, the coverage provided by @CFA: is also questionable. Why? Because the term “PR” is clearly mentioned under the image captions, suggesting it's likely based on press releases. The coverage in Business Recorder is confirmed to be press release-based as well, as indicated by the byline. Now the question is, since when did we start keeping articles based on press release coverage? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exclusively basing my !vote on Dawn coverage but RS/N seems to support @CFA's view and CFA brought other sources that support notability under WP:NCORP. I note you have not supplied any press release that you assert (without evidence thus far) the Dawn articles are based on. Sourcing an image to a press release is extremely common even with reliable sources, which need to attribute their images and have no reason not to use images provided by companies. That is no indication that the article itself is based on a press release. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, Please check the tone of these articles - they’re clearly PROMO. We don’t always need evidence to show that a piece is based on a press release. I don’t have to add anything more on this. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CFA and Dclemens1971 analysis. StormFiber is not a company or subsidiary - it is doing business as StormFiber for public internet connections. StormFiber coverage ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) does count towards Cyber Internet (additional coverage: [10], [11]). At worst, redirect to Lakson Group per WP:ATD. 194.213.16.36 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the reliability of the sources has been questioned. Also, the option of a Redirect has also been proposed. Participants coming into the discussion now, please check the sources brought up in this discussion, not just the ones appearing in the article now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.dawn.com/news/1476691	While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release	~ It’s a no-byline piece and seems based on a press release. If one check the tone because it reads just like one	It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1519863	While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release	~ It’s a no-byline piece, based on company's own press statement	It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727236	While Dawn is a Independent RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author	? It’s a no-byline piece	It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself	✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/1953039/pakistans-internet-infrastructure-get-96-tbs-boost-new-cable-system	The ET is a RS, but this is a no-byline piece, so we don't know the author. It looks like it's based on a press release	~ It’s a no-byline piece and seems based on a press release. If one check the tone because it reads just like one	It's routine news coverage with no in-depth details about the company itself	✘ No
https://www.brecorder.com/news/40211289	~ While Business Recorder is an independent news source but this is clearly marked as press release	~ Since this is based on a press release, I'm unsure	~ I don't see in-depth details about the company itself	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Safavid Capture of Mesopotamia (1623-1624)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no useful encyclopedic content about its subject, the Safavid capture of Mesopotamia. There is no lede section, and two of the three paragraphs are not about the campaign. The first paragraph is background, and the second paragraph is about the victorious commander. The infobox says nothing, because the strength and the losses are unknown. The third paragraph is partly about a military victory without describing the victory.

The sentence

This text aims to cover key aspects of his reign: his rise to power, consolidation, military successes, and the establishment of Isfahan

is not only not encyclopedic, but reads as if it was copied from a book. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, and Iraq. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AI-generated content Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: in case anyone was wondering why this wasn't simply draftified, this is a disputed draftification. -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I was feeling the same thing. The author move it the mainspace from an AfC. Idk what to do and just remove the AfC template and tag it as no lede. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can do with it whatever you'd do with any other article you come across while patrolling, with one exception: you can't draftify it yourself, because WP:DRAFTOBJECT. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, User:Asilvering is correct that I forgot to mention that this is a disputed draftification. I didn't ask for draftification as an alternative to deletion because I had doubts about its origin. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ChatGPT creation: [12]. -- asilvering (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ChatGPT-written text of dubious accuracy, most of which is only tangentially related to the topic. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Romania, Ottawa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Article based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Romania, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company article. Indian sources are not useful per WP:RSNOI. Veldsenk (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can only find routine coverage unhelpful for notability per WP:ORGTRIV and obviously sponsored posts. C F A 💬 23:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Kuwait. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article does not currently carry any meaningful or important content to be covered on Wikipedia as of yet. Once the are notable or important media coverage from independent and reliable sources, not paid promotional articles, the article can be requested for retrieve from the deleted articles by anyone with sufficient reason, notability and reliable sources coverage, if no one request for the article to be retrieved, it means the is no value for the article to be covered on Wikipedia.

Vote: Delete Dwaynemoony (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not the one who created this article, but I was one of the editors who completely rewrote the article and included a string of international media sources (which are used in extremely large numbers in other articles). After much discussion and recommendations I kept only the notable sources which are certainly sufficient to keep the article. Also, being a globally known platform, I would be of the opinion that it can be present on wikipedia. Being a related platform to Temu which is even newer in the market it is already present in wikipedia.
I want to mention that I have nothing to do with this topic!

P.S In the meantime I will analyze to identify new sources in addition to the existing ones in the article.--DanikS88 (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as if you have close connection to the subject, which is not allowed or have you been paid to cover the subject? is not only about the source is also about you close to the subject, and also about the importance to be covered on Wikipedia, should there be any important new information with credibility, the deletion will be extended for further discussion until then, it should be removed, it does not have any importance to be covered on Wikipedia as of yet. It should be part of the company's story on their own website. Dwaynemoony (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no close connection with this topic and I don't edit wikipedia for pay. I do it for pleasure and in the interest of learning something and providing readers with credible information. It's easy to blame someone, but harder to make wikipedia better. DanikS88 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at least per WP:NEWSORGINDIA and lack of notability. --美しい歌 (talk) 10:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a top source from Kuwait to the article, so I reviewed the sources available in the article which are enough to establish the notability of the article, as I said these sources are used in hundreds of wikipedia articles. I don't want to comment on the editors who vote deletion because it's not my right (but some of them seem to be from a WP:SOCK), this will be reviewed by an administrator. I just ask that the editor who will be in charge of deleting the article to review the past version of the article and the current version to make a comparison, because the subject is notable being internationally known, having some revenue which is enough to prove notability.--DanikS88 (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article you added is a routine, no-byline promo piece about an app update. If you suspect sockpuppetry, take it to SPI. Don't cast aspersions with no evidence. Please strike but some of them seem to be from a WP:SOCK. C F A 💬 20:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

177 Franklin Street

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be short of WP:GNG and it doesn't qualify for WP:NBUILD, so the previous deletion opposition which was based upon "This is a contributing building to the Tribeca West Historic District and is substantially covered in the LPC report, which by itself is enough for notability. " is not national level recognition to presume notability under WP:NGEO Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per Greywalls. Axad12 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Tribeca West Historic District should have its own article and if one is created then this can be merged with that. But until such an article exists, deleting information on an historic building which has its own entry in the designation report serves no useful purpose to anyone with any interest in historic architecture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp:, that's a NYC.gov, a local government. What part of this is national designation level as said in WP:NBUILD? Graywalls (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. But that's not what I said. Just because it's not nationally designated doesn't mean it can't be notable. Plenty of New York City Landmarks do have their own articles. I see no value in deleting information on an historic building "just because"! It might certainly be better served in a wider article, but unfortunately there isn't yet one. But in any case, it does appear to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tribeca West Historic District ~~Delete~~ - this is a run-of-the-mill older building in NYC, like thousands of others in the city that have features like: Some surviving historic features include a pressed metal cornice, prominent brick-and-stone lintels, a brick corbel table, wood sash windows, and cast-iron piers, so I'm failing to understand what makes this one notable. The sourcing is quite weak, consisting of blogs like Curbed and trade journal-like websites like Commercial Observer or GlobeSt. Here's what GlobeSt's website says about their mission to publish native advertising: Native Advertising: Connect your content with our website audience in the context of the editorial user experiences; the result is higher visibility and engagement for your thought leadership content.[13]. In other words, "Pay to Play." I understand the building lies within the boundaries of the "Historical District" however, if the building were notably historic we would see coverage in books on architectural history, or critical/analytical analysis in architectural magazines or academic journals. An online BEFORE search finds real estate listings, more blogs but not in-depth coverage outside of the incident where the developer/owner wanted to mount a huge crucifix to the exterior. I agree that an article on the Tribeca Historic District would be the perfect place to redirect this, but one has not been created, yet. Fails GNG and NBUILD. Many houses on the very block I live on fall within our local "historical district", does that mean they are wiki-notable? No, it just means they are old and haven't been gut renovated.Netherzone (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This building is a contributing property to a city historic district (not even an individual landmark), so it doesn't automatically meet NBUILD, but I'm leaning toward it meeting GNG. The LPC source does have a few details about the building's early history and facade, but since 177 Franklin was only designated along with 1,000 other buildings in Tribeca West, the info in the report is more limited. I did find a handful of sources about the Shinola store, like this New York Times Magazine source and this source from Hodinkee. I also found a source from the Wall Street Journal which describes how the building was supposed to become luxury apartments before becoming a store. This source from the Real Deal describes a few of the previous plans for the building. I haven't looked into pre-2000s sources, but like Netherzone, I was unable to find coverage of the building in architectural magazines.
As for the other sources currently in the article, Walter Grutchfield is self-published, and Wikimapia isn't reliable. GlobeSt.com and Commercial Observer are both reputable trade journals with editorial oversight, but the sources from these websites don't comprise significant coverage. (As an example, this GlobeSt article about the building's sale, which ostensibly is three paragraphs long, only describes the number of stories and the building's cost—a total of two sentences). Though Curbed is now owned by New York Media, LLC, the two Curbed sources in the article were published when Curbed was still an independent blog, so I hesitate to call this reliable. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how any reader could possibly benefit by having less factual information rather than more about a building that has been noted as contributing to the designation of a historic district. Station1 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, thanks for sharing your opinion, but it would be useful if you would substantiate policy based argument that supports your position Graywalls (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but I think far more important is the spirit of Wikipedia, "to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge." Contrary to your bald assertions, without further explanation, that the article does not meet the guidelines (not policy) at WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD, the topic does have reliable secondary sources that address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content, primarily and especially the LPC report. Furthermore, WP:NBUILD says buildings "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." This building has historic and architectural importance documented by the LPC, a reliable third-party source. And no one has yet researched local papers for information about its social importance regarding the church controversy, where freedom of religion and zoning rules clashed, nor about its use as a public avant-garde concert venue in the '80s. And under WP:NGEO "national level recognition" only presumes notability, it does not mean other historic structures cannot be notable; besides which NYC is larger than about half the nations of the world. Granted, this is far from the world's most important building, but we have literally thousands of articles about similarly or less notable buildings on Wikipedia, and consensus is that they stay. Now that I've attempted to answer your question, perhaps you can explain how Wikipedia readers will benefit by depriving them of the facts contained in this article. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, @Station1, as mentioned in my comment above I did indeed do a BEFORE search, which I consider to be best practices in AfDs. Newspapers.com had several hits, but these were simple mentions for things like, "so and so lived at 177 Franklin Street, who died on Friday" lot's of these types of mentions. I also found mentions of the address in listings for apartments that were for rent. But found nothing about the building itself or its architectural, historical importance. Additionally I did a Google search and only came up with blogs, real estate listings, primary sources, and a few pieces about the big crucifix event. I also did a search of the LPC report, and found nothing in it about this specific building at 177 Franklin. Do you have a page number in the report that you could direct us to? Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's on pages 295-6. Station1 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I found it with your help. What I found there is a short paragraph mainly describing the physical characteristics, but not any distinguishing characteristics that would indicate how this specific building is exceptional and set apart from the other many thousands of buildings that fall within drawn historical boundaries in NYC. This indicates run of the mill, WP:MILL at least to my way of thought. What would you consider to be the two other best sources? Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is either notable or it's not. Barely notable is still notable. A real-world reliable independent source with competence in the subject has taken note of this building and provided facts about it, facts that we can pass on to readers, however few, who might be interested in those facts, and that's enough for me. I still haven't heard any argument explaining why those readers are better off not knowing facts about this building. Station1 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't. There's a range of notability and if it doesn't meet GNG or the relevant SNG have no place on Wikipedia. A tract home chosen for a home makeover show is more notable than the rest of the homes in the subdivision but it's going to take a very significant, in-depth coverage in multiple sources with significant level of details by independent reliable sources devoted to that house to be considered for an article. Graywalls (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG does not say very, or in-depth, or significant level [of details]. It does say "There is no fixed number of sources required..." and that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Your criteria seem to be higher than what GNG suggests. Station1 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sort of does in WP:SIGCOV. "multiple sources are generally expected". and it defines what significant coverage means on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ or draftify. Given the sources presented, the article does not appear to meat the GNG or other notability guidelines. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory of historic buildings, I can't in good faith argue to keep in this case, but Station1 and Necrothesp make a good point that deleting verifiable, factual information is in tension with the overall goal of Wikipedia. Draftification, especially if someone is interested in putting together a brief Tribeca West Historic District article would be a reasonable ATD, but if no one is ready to do the work, deletion may be necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eluchil404, thanks for explaining your reasoning. As a heads-up, someone else has now created the Tribeca West Historic District article. (Also pinging @Necrothesp who mentioned the Tribeca West red link.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Tribeca West Historic District, now that it has been created. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could very well be notable, but the sourcing just isn't there. I don't find anything extra we can use either. Plenty of listed buildings in NYC that have articles that aren't in the National Register, but we need sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tribeca West Historic District - Too bad nobody ever listed this at WP:GAC, as this looks like it would be an interesting article if it were expanded and sourced a bit. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Iowa Council

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BRANCH. The branch lacks enough independent notability to be able to pass WP:NCORP and I suggest DELETING or REDIRECTING, but I am not sure of target. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and Iowa. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The relevant standard for nonprofit organizations would be WP:ORG rather than WP:NCORP, and there is no mention of any WP:BEFORE search. A quick search of Newspapers.com finds a widely syndicated article about the sex abuse scandal involving the Northeast Iowa Council, such as this 2024 article in The Muscatine Journal (the version which appeared in The Gazette is accessible here). There are also feature articles about Northeast Iowa Council's old Adventure Island camp (dating back to 1952), and the Claus family's agreement to lease the Northeast Iowa Council land for its new camp (1956). I would argue that there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG...but that it's the sex abuse scandal that makes the issue of whether or not to keep this article more complicated than any notability criteria. If the article is kept, the issue needs to be addressed within the article itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The form of incorporation with their local government entity isn't all that relevant. It only matters when their scope of activity is national or international. Graywalls (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Athletic FC

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local club team in the United States, in a feeder league that includes 400 teams. Would only be notable if there were significant recognition by the league for excellence. Sadads (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Premier Soccer League as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Alaskan Railroad Journeys

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source could be found to qualify the article for notability. Since the documentary was produced by the BBC, the BBC website in article cannot be considered a suitable source. 日期20220626 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Transportation, United Kingdom, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great American Railroad Journeys. Great Alaskan Railroad Journeys was produced as its own series, but an edited version was re-released as the fourth series on the show. If any reviews do turn up describing the series, they can be covered in that article without any weight problems. However, I've looked through several British newspapers, TV review sites as well as local Alaskan papers (The ADN, News-Miner and Juneau Empire) for any reviews or mentions of either season four of the main series or Great Alaskan Railroad Journeys. I've found a handful of routine announcements in The Guardian saying what time episodes was meant to air, one piece by Portillo in The Timesabout the series (obviously unusable for GNG purposes) and that's it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great American Railroad Journeys: has unsourced 🌀TyphoonAmpil🌀 (💬 - 📝) 09:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael_Portillo#Television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great American Railroad Journeys. I object to the proposed redirect to Michael Portillo as a markedly inferior target. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanhai Chao

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sources that would make the article meet notability.日期20220626 (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPEI Student Union

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While UPEI is notable, the union does not inherit that notability. This serves as a promo piece. Wozal (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Wozal (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The union receives very regular coverage from the CBC:

And from, as far as I can tell, at least one other outlet:

https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/lifestyles/20-questions-with-upei-student-union-president-camille-mady-100895015/

So maybe it can still go in UPEI, but you can’t dismiss this out of hand. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to the university. The secondary sources both on the article and listed here, are transactional in nature, rather than the detailed sources that are required to show notability. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions. So, is what being suggested by one editor a Merge to University of Prince Edward Island? It helps if you provide a link to the target article as there might be several articles that exist on the same overall subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SureAI

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail notability, a timeline of released works. IgelRM (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Germany. IgelRM (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, extremely famous modding team/dev studio that won several mods of the year awards, plenty of IRS coverage. [14][15][16][17] This is a gross failure of WP:BEFORE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"fame" is not notability and Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. The Eurogamer feature is good, but it is not an obvious keep. The other sources don't look like significant coverage, regardless I should take a break from AFD noms for a while. IgelRM (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NCORP. [18][19][20][21][22] etc. C F A 💬 23:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All except gamerant.com, report on the same announcement of a commercial game. IgelRM (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? They still offer several paragraphs of significant coverage of the company. C F A 💬 03:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a single event is will covered, it might make more sense to mention it, e.g. on the legacy of Nehrim, Nosgoth, than to write about the subject (similar to WP:SINGLEEVENT). IgelRM (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are one of the most well-known game modding groups.

The main issue I see is that much of what I added to the history section uses SureAI's self-published timeline as the main reference, but the page was established as notable before I even did this. I think better sources may be needed, but that doesn't qualify this for deletion. TheSmumbo (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain my reasoning, I did not nominate because of the use of self-published sources. I think the article does not go beyond a database entry and I could not find sources to change that. IgelRM (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP. The Eurogamer article is the only one that is significant coverage, not enough to meet notability. The rest are news stories that focus on the games they were developing, not the company. They don't "address the subject of the article directly and in depth". See also WP:CORPDEPTH: There should be "coverage that provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements". All of these news articles are just that "routine announcements", not significant coverage of the company. --Mika1h (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each article has at least 1-2 paragraphs of coverage of the company. Some have more. Sure, I wouldn't say it's an "obvious keep", but I do think the coverage adds up to NCORP. C F A 💬 16:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CORPDEPTH: "collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant". --Mika1h (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several paragraphs about the company is nowhere near "trivial". Some of the articles aren't entirely about the company itself, and instead focus on the company's games, but they still offer some significant coverage that counts towards NCORP. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. C F A 💬 00:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A modding team, that won multiple awards, including The Game Awards for best fan creation (2016), multiple mods of year awards from several publications, now a full game studio with several releases.

That's like saying Christopher Nolan isn't notable, only his movies are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, organizations have higher notability requirements than people. Coverage of companies products doesn't contribute to the notability of the company. --Mika1h (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Mr. Nolan has no sourcing about him, we can't create an article for him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on how much weight we give the Eurogamer feature (which also intends to highlight modding in general). In my view, because the majority of information here can only be gleaned from primary source, a good legacy section on Enderal would make more sense. IgelRM (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a good compromise. TheSmumbo (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Enderal, their most notable project. This is why I don't like the extreme narrowing of CORP that has taken place over the last several years. Yes keeping commercial spam off of Wikipedia is important, but removing coverage of organizations(including one that in this case was originally not for profit) that produce notable products doesn't help our readers if the pages aren't poorly written promos, as this one is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage I find is all about Skyrim mods, I suppose we could have a brief mention there, but there isn't much of anything about this company themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about SureAI themselves. Likewise, [23][24] is a two part interview of SureAI's project lead. Another on RPGWatch [25] and GamerGlobal.de [26]. This is about the future (in 2021) projects of SureAI (i.e. Dreadful River). There's plenty more, i.e. the awards they won etc.... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1922 Howard Bison football team

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG nor does it meet SNG. Per WP:CFBSEASON "Single seasons can be considered notable. In this case the season must receive substantial non-routine coverage". The only source seems to be from the school itself. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I have expanded the article with improved sourcing that shows substantial non-routine coverage. Nominated didn't do a WP:BEFORE. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article lacked any independent sourcing at the time of the nomination (see here), but with the WP:SIGCOV added by Jweiss, this passes the WP:GNG standard. Given the improvement, perhaps the nominator will now withdraw the nom. Cbl62 (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator While I couldn't originally find non routine coverage or many sources (and I did look) several people have worked hard to find those sources where I couldn't. I am new to this and will make sure to include more details about my serach before nominating to ensure there isn't confusion around wether or not I looked. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per the sources added to the article by Jweiss11. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udayan Secondary School, Barisal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of about 35 secondary schools in the city. Translated from the Bengali Wikipedia. All the content comes from the school's website. The other source cited, barisallive24.com (now dead), is obscure and of unknown reliability but probably partly supported the last sentence of the article. That sentence has lost something in translation. In its history the school has received two awards for excellence. Not, judging by the barisallive24.com title, for being the top school in the country, but for their results within Barisal District.

Searches in English and Bengali found a few primary source breaking news stories, but no significant coverage of the school itself.[27][28][29] Nothing more has been written about the 2013 allegation or the 2017 and 2020 complaints about fees. Without multiple secondary sources containing significant coverage, does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Open to redirection to List of educational institutions in Barisal District, where the school is listed. Worldbruce (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detentions following the September 11 attacks

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could easily be merged into Aftermath of the September 11 attacks if a new section is created. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into PENTTBOM. According to the sources on the destination page, the arrests were made as a result of the PENTTBOM investigation, so it would make sense for this page to be merged as an additional section there. Longhornsg (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Boys Senior High School, (MARISCO)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not fit GNG or SNG. Only appears to have one source and the source does not go into depth. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Drumnamether

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet GNG specifically the "Significant coverage" section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did mean to include that I read over WP:GEOLAND but wasn't sure if this place was legally recognized. Either way it seems to fail both GNG and SNG. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mullaghbrack. As noted, there doesn't appear to be anything especially notable about (and no significant coverage of) this small townland. The only sources I can find are the same directory-style entries (confirming existence and location) we have in the article. I can't even find any population information (to confirm whether the townland is sufficiently populated or otherwise contains notable structures) to warrant a stand-alone article. Per WP:GEOLAND, this small townland can be covered "in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it" (the civil parish of Mullaghbrack being the next level "up"). With a redirect. Guliolopez (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are townlands inherently notable as being legally recognized? If not it could be merged with its parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GEOLAND "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." and "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." hence why I included that I couldnt tell if it's legally recognized as there would be more of an argument to keep if it was legally recognized. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drumnamether, like many other townlands, deserves acknowledgment in accordance with WP:GEOLAND; if it were to be overlooked, one might wonder why townlands are not absent from Wikipedia altogether. Sharkzy (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pavlovich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician and artist, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NARTIST.
The attempted notability claim as a musician is that he was formerly lead singer of a band, but band members are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles as separate topics from their bands just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage that focuses specifically on them (as opposed to just glancingly namechecking them in coverage of the band) -- however, the only music-related footnote here is a "10 best death metal singers" listicle in an unreliable source, which is not sufficient to claim passage of NMUSIC by itself.
And the attempted notability claim as a visual artist is that he's had local art shows in the region where he lives, referenced to one short blurb and a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about somebody else, which is not sufficient to get him over the notability bar for visual artists either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better coverage in reliable sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Sports Network

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is devoid of citations indicating notability, and a cursory search suggests that this cannot be improved upon. It is WP:N CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, American football, Baseball, Basketball, Football, Softball, Volleyball, Wrestling, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just posting some sources I found. [30][31] Not enough yet though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Gall

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC as an individual. As always, members of bands are not "inherently" notable enough for their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources that focuses specifically on them (as opposed to just being glancingly namechecked in coverage of the band) -- but the sole footnote here is the band's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail to see how this is notable, can't find any WP:RS on this "Han–Xiongnu War (215 BC–200 BC)". The creator of this article basically copied the stuff they were reverted (and blocked) for at Battle of Baideng here. They've misused tons of citations here [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40], and recently engaged in copyvio in another article [41], which may also be the case here. Most of the citations left are unverifiable (which is very convenient, I can't look for further violations) and doesn't strike me as WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UP T20 League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another mass-created minor league which fails WP:GNG and WP:OFFCRIC. Oh, and I better nominate it for deletion, despite the threat not too! AA (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mammad Abbasbayli

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notabilty. Doesn't have significiant coverage in reliable independent sources. He is head of The State Service for Antimonopoly and Consumer Market Control under the Ministry of Economy, which is not a position that can make someone notable. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable civil servant; the position seems to be head of a financial regulatory agency, but nothing cabinet-level. Not meeting political or other notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7075

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This galaxy is not notable, all of the references are to catalog entries. Parejkoj (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is some commentary beyond catalogue entries about this galaxy here: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/4/5719/5923577?login=false , https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/489/3/3739/5554765?login=false and https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/484/3/4239/5299582?login=false. The radio source accociated with the galaxy is descripted in a more than a passing reference in a table here https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/282/1/40/1036079?login=false. It is a keep for me. --C messier (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those papers are about the galaxy itself, they just have some paragraphs discussing it. That's pretty weak notability at best. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still these are multiple sources that provide commentary that is more than a trivial mention. The ALMA series is quite low volume, only discussing a dozen objects at most, including this particular galaxy. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material WP:SIGCOV. C messier (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:NASTRO we presume notability because it was discovered before 1850 but a careful investigation may show that it is not notable. Even if we discover sufficient references to meet our notability critera we may go on to decide there should not be an article on this galaxy. I hope that is completely clear! Thincat (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it might not be notable, we can redirect this galaxy to Lists of NGC Objects (7000-7800) as an alternative like NGC 1016, NGC 4 and NGC 529.--Galaxybeing (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per C messier with more than trivial coverage. Otherwise redirect to Lists of NGC Objects (7000-7800) as an ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of piscine and amphibian humanoids

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pile of poorly-sourced trivia with no evidence of meeting WP:LISTN * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May need cleanup. Part of a larger series of lists, i.e {{fictional biology}}. Deleting this would leave a hole in that compilation. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this page as an adjunct to List of avian humanoids and list of reptilian humanoids, and to clean up a massive amount of overlinking in the mermaid article. Serendi ^podous 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure certain things need cleanup, but this page would be good for this website. @Serendipodous: is right about his claims. Outside of the List of reptilian humanoids, List of avian humanoids, and Insectoids in science fiction and fantasy, there isn't a list page for any Human–animal hybrid that would be in the beast people category like the beast folk seen in The Island of Doctor Moreau and the beast folk seen in Duel Masters (renamed "beast kin" in Kaijudo). --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can dig up discussion for this subject as a whole. I don't see any indication that this grouping, or any of the other fictional biology lists of a kind similar to it, are notable as a group. If discussion on this group as a whole can be found and show that there's enough for an article, I'd feel more confident with keeping this around, but as it stands right now this list is just a mostly unsourced collection of indiscriminate information. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid navigational list. Far more useful than the category Category:Piscine and amphibian humanoids, since it allows additional information to be listed, helping people find what they wish easier. Dream Focus 02:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably rename to List of aquatic humanoids. For the piscine side, there's at least a chapter in The Body Fantastic and a paragraph in this Vice article, as well as many secondary sources on individual examples. These may not be stellar sources with regard to WP:LISTN, but given the recognized navigational value within the Lists of humanoids I believe it is in the best interest of the project to keep this list. Trimming of some non-blue-linked and unsourced examples can help with the impression of trivia. If one looks for "aquatic humanoid" instead, more secondary sources appear, like this web article, where I am not sure about the reliability; academic publications like this and this, as well as this book, which all have "mermaid" in the title but talk about "aquatic humanoids" more generally. Another source is The Stuff of Science Fiction, which talks about aquatic creatures in fiction in general, but deals with aquatic humanoids specifically for several pages, starting from p. 77. Daranios (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Aquatic humanoids" is too general. We'd have to include undines, water nymphs, water elementals, and pretty much every sea god. Serendi ^podous 14:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When I first edited this page, I had tried to sort the piscine humanoids from the amphibian humanoids only for it to be reverted by @Serendipodous: who stated in his reversion edit summary "technically, if you merge a man with a fish, you are creating an amphibian, so the distinction between fish people and frog people isn't all that clear cut". --Rtkat3 (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pokelego999. This isn't a real topic, and readers can't discern what it is. It's just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE bunch of characters that editors have compiled through WP:OR. Daranios suggested a good WP:ATD, which is to rename this in a way that it aligns with a real topic supported by sources. I could be convinced to support that, but it's a bad sign that nobody can really say what this page is supposed to be about. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cross a human with something that has gills. Where's the confusion? Serendi ^podous 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need multiple reliable secondary sources to establish that. Without it, it's just editors arguing their personal opinion about what the article is about. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pokelego999 and Shooterwalker - As it stands, the overall topic of this list is not a genuine topic that has sources covering it. That not only makes it a failure of WP:LISTN, but also makes the whole concept reliant on WP:SYNTH. Even the sources brought up above are on topics of a much narrower, more specific scope, and are largely covered by other articles. The proposed retitling/reworkings of the list don't really work as making it a list of "Aquatic Humanoids" is, as pointed out, far too broad and becomes redundant with other articles, and specifying it as humans crossed with gilled creatures is not a topic that actually has sources or passes WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: With which other lists would a List of aquatic humanoids be redundant within the framework of Lists of humanoids? Daranios (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was expanding on Serendipodous' observation that a list of "Aquatic Humanoids" is too general, as that would have to include all manner of mythological figures associated with the water, such as gods, and other folklore figures. So, an example of redundancy when you start getting that broad would be something like our List of water deities. We also have things like Mermaids in popular culture and other specific lists or sections of articles that cover specific "types" of what would be considered aquatic humanoids. And even if we tried to narrow the inclusion criteria to not include things like that, then there is still the issue that there are no sources that I can find or have been presented that actually discuss topics as disparate as anthropomorphized frogs, Lovecraftian monsters, and Aquaman as being the same subject or covered as a group. And if there are no reliable sources that actually group the concept of "humans crossed with any animal that lives in the water", creating a list here that does just that is WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the secondary sources already listed, there is also an important one in the 14-page introduction to The Penguin Book of Mermaids. It talks about our beings as a group, but does not use the term humanoid but rather "merbeings" or "mermaids/merfolk and other water spirits". With regard to the broadness of scope, I think these are problems which can be solved editorially: As one main use is navigation, starting from List of lists of lists this is a subdivision of Lists of humanoids, which is obviously even broader but still exists. And as much as possible, and without getting into original research, we should aim for a structure which leads to all humanoid (species) on Wikipedia. Daranios (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, there are secondary sources which do put "psicine humanoids" and "amphibian humanoids" together, like The Body Fantastic, p. 164. So I do not think we are amiss if we do the same. But there is also "The Pepe the Frog meme: an examination of social, political, and cultural implications through the tradition of the Darwinian Absurd", which despite the name does not only discuss Pepe the Frog, but also what sets "amphibian humanoids" as a group apart. Daranios (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of language proficiency tests

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic list of tests without reliable secondary sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, and Lists. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Language proficiency tests are certainly a thing, and a list of tests used across various languages seems intuitively useful. There are sources, albeit not great ones, but it seems intuitive that better ones would exist, particularly since some of these tests have articles of their own. BD2412 T 02:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against trimming it to the ones with articles, but then there wouldn't be much to the article to make it distinct from Category:Language tests or the related template. ... discospinster _talk 20:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much sourcing. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 73 references in the article so far. Anything without its own article or a reference, can be removed. This list is more useful than the category, since it allows more information to be listed. Dream Focus 03:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Mehta

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As prophesied, this page is immediately back after soft deletion. This biography of an Indian civil servant fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the individual in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE coverage and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that refer to him in the context of his former role while covering other subjects. (For example, the awards he is purported to have received were granted to the Jammu and Kashmir government and accepted by Mehta on its behalf.) There is no other WP:SIGCOV in sources considered reliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there are two questions here:Notability and Coverage.

I don't WP:NPOL is the standard here. He is a civil servant, neither a person who was voted into the position not a Judge. However, his position in the Order of precedence in India is above certain individuals that would qualify. I think in terms of notability, the closest equivalent would be people who are Secretary of State for a given US State, such as those in where Wikipedia has quite a few. (Yes, I know the Americans are (US State) Cabinet positions, but this seems to be close to the same and equally doesn't seem covered by WP:NPOL.
Coverage There isn't any doubt that he holds the position, the question is whether the first two references which show that he *had* the position are enough to show general notability. So at this point, and I'll hopefully come back after others have commented, I'm a Week Keep.

Delete: Chief secretary and other non-notable positions, simply a high civil servant, but nothing to distinguish them from the other thousands like them... The award doesn't appear notable. I'd also SALT. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the description of " top-most executive official and senior-most civil servant " at Chief secretary (India), I don't think "simply a high civil servant" applies.Naraht (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the description makes him sound even less important than a highly placed functionary. Even less notability attached to the positions held then, thank you for the correction. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Most sources on the page are poor, unreliable and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I cannot find subject's work as IPS, Chief secretary and as politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe Pakistan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non passing the GNG notability: Someone is advertising about Noor Xarmina and probably Captain Assassin and Alizee Ali Khan who are both same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Noor_Xarmina redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Pakistan_Universal WKS87 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Doing a quick Google search shows multiple sources good sources (BBC, The Independent, The Economic Times). WKS87 did you do WP:BEFORE? Nobody (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should be of Miss Pakistan World and Miss Pakistan Universal WKS87 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. [42][43][44][45][46][47] all about this one. Nobody (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You should have this article not deleted because it is a article that connections to the Miss Universe Organization Apipattana (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Nomination statement is all but indecipherable. Nate • (chatter) 22:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic Weekend results

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the Magic Weekend is special, the results aren't. There is no statistical importance, no link between the results, no extra trophy, ... Basically WP:NOTSTATS, no indication why the results from this weekend are more noteworthy Fram (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, Lists, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep A list of stats doesn't really have any impact on readability and this article has the stats placed into the context of Magic Weekend per WP:NOTSTATS. WP:GNG is debatable to whether these stats are notable. Mn1548 (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is deleted, a removal of results from Magic Round (NRL) and Summer Bash will be needed. Mn1548 (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTSTATS. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Raj

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from the obvious undisclosed paid editing by Pinknetwork123, a fairly new account with 20 edits, comes up with a 20000 bytes draft. It was quickly accepted by a reviewer who I believe did not properly evaluate it. At this point, the article was majorly based on primary sources. Interviews, commentaries, and his opinion pieces do not contribute towards GNG. I believe the rest are paid PR articles and there is no significant coverage of Prateek Raj in independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, Social science, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.

1. Edits are not at all paid. Sorry if they appear to be. Have edited Wikipedia in the past, but usually do without logging in.

2. Subject’s recently published paper got significant media coverage (mentioned in references), which triggered me, an acquaintance, to create the article including all of his previous media coverages.

3. Subject gained salience on D&I issues since activism on hate speech and LGBT issues.

4. Has significant social media following.

5. Have used credible third party sources for all information, from websites and reputed media houses that pass Wiki’s credibility check

6. I defer judgement to editor consensus, thanks. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw everyone’s attention to Wikietiquette Article for Deletion, WP:AFDEQ, especially on the fourth point “Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.” I would recommend editors to be unbalanced and take a constructive approach here, given that it concerns a living person.

First, the claim that the article has "obvious undisclosed paid editing" is not correct, as I have already explained before. Additionally, the assertion that he gives “interviews on paid promotional sources” is baseless. Which interviews specifically are paid? Those with The Times of India on hate speech, NDTV, Bloomberg, or discussions on caste and income in The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Telegraph, New Indian Express, or the op-eds on LGBT rights? Just a simple Google search shows that subject has several engagements. And his bio is openly available across academic space to help people create his profile.

It may be reasonable to debate the subject’s notability, it is inappropriate to dismiss their legitimate work as “paid” without evidence. I encourage editors to adhere to Wikietiquette WP:AFDEQ to remain impartial and decide constructively in this discussion. Thank you. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinknetwork123: What unsourced negative comments do you think have been made here? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jlwoodwa for your comment. The comments made here on 1. “obvious” undisclosed paid editing 2. “paid PR articles” and 3. interviews on “paid promotional” sources, make unsourced negative claims about the subject and his work, which affects their reputation in this public space. This is not in line with Wikietiquette policy.

The article cites several reputed and credible secondary sources from the Indian media specifically covering the subject and his work. After this discussion, I agree there are some primary sources which can be removed, and the article can be modified to Wiki standards. The article has been put twice by two different editors in the mainspace.

I understand that editors can put any article to AfD, but I agree with Wikietiquette that AfD should not become a place for making unsubstantiated claims about the work of a living person. I’d welcome a more measured tone when dealing with living persons. Thank you! Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much a promotional article [48], so the statement stands. Others are items this person published under their own name, and are a primary source. No articles strictly about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a lot of the sources aren't at par with what I'd expect when looking for WP:BLPRS, I do believe there are atleast three reliable sources that satisfy the bar for notability:
- [49] is a article in The Hindu talks in detail about a paper the individual coauthored.
- [50] is another article in The Hindu that talks about a study he lead.
- [51] is another article in The Telegraph (India) that talks about research that he lead.
- [52] is another article in Indian Express that also talks about his research.

I think the fact that the findings in his research are being covered by newspapers of record and the fact that he holds the position of a assistant professor at IIM Bangalore would sufficiently qualify him to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7. Sohom (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. Many are passing mentions coming from a report released by the Indian Institute of Management. The Hindu article has no byline and the impact of the report is nowhere to be seen. The second Hindu article is authored by a freelance journalist and a study/ report done with 2 others. 3 has some interview bytes and 4 only mentions his name once.

The position of Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore doesn't carry much weight when evaluating for WP:NACADEMIC. I believe the extensive coverage about the latest report is only because it is related to Karnataka's govt, which i beleive only makes it as routine coverage.

I fail to see Prateek Raj's reports creating substantial impact in terms of citations or otherwise. AFAICS, they fail to meet all eight criterias listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira To clear one thing up, I did not imply that the position "Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore" carries much weight. What I implied was that given the fact that he is a professor, we should use the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to evaluate him instead of the more stringent WP:GNG criteria. Sohom (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both of you for your comments. The academic is known for 3 separate issues, reported in reputed and prominent media houses of India. I will highlight only media mentions that cover exclusively or prominently him.

1. for his recent paper on Dalit economy, where he has been interviewed in the Hindu, the Telegraph, the Indian Express, the New Indian Express, the Times of India. All these interviews are referenced in the article, like, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/dalit-business-owners-experience-income-gap-of-16-when-compared-to-other-disadvantaged-groups-finds-study/article68505789.ece

2. for his work on hate speech. He has a full interview with The Times India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/podcasts/the-times-of-india-podcast/how-hate-can-hurt-indias-economic-dreams/videoshow/102992737.cms. He also has a detailed interview with Indian Express and NDTV, and well as a full interview on history of media markets in Bloomberg.

3. for his advocacy of LGBT rights. His October 2023 OpEd in the Indian Express merits him a notable place in LGBT Academics category, which is underpopulated, and needs more biographies https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/sc-marriage-equality-judgment-8992557/.

Thanks to this review process, which is helpful as it helps identify what is noteworthy about the subject. The constructive way forward may be to trim the article with only the most noteworthy information. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources on the page are quite poor with some written by the subject himself and some others with passing mention and interviews on paid promotional sources. Some sources are also unreliable. The subject has not had a significant noteworthy impact through his profession and outside the profession nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Page also reads as resume. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some more opinions here. But, Pinknetwork123 know that interviews don't help establish notability. Their content can be used to verify article content but having the subject talk about themself and their work doesn't help demonstrate that the subject themself is notable (as Wikipedia judges notability).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz! Your input helped me assess the sources better. With AfC and AfD processes, the article has significantly improved with mostly credible secondary sources that meet WP:NACADEMIC#7 in my view (thanks for highlighting Sohom!). I focused on Wikipedia:BLPRS-compliant sources that aren't based on press releases, particularly relevant in the Indian context (Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA). Here are a few: The Telegraph, The Hindu, and Indian Express highlight the author’s work on caste; Economic Times and Mint cover his work on regional inequality. The one-to-one Times of India interview is as a notable hate speech activist, and his October 2023 Indian Express Op-Ed, though a primary source, is relevant for his role as an LGBT academic from Global South (an underrepresented group on Wikipedia, here). Pinknetwork123 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to pass academic notability with very few publications. Wonderful that they advocate for change, but just not enough non-puffy coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are invariably not notable and this one is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The article has undergone a lot of revision since it was nominated. Here is the source assessment for the current version with 23 sources.
- Direct independent coverage from secondary sources for criteria WP:NACADEMIC#7 (reliable) 11 sources: 1 (Hindu), 2, 21, 22 (Indian Express), 6 (NDTV), 7, 20 (Times of India), 10, 11 (Telegraph India), 12 (New Indian Express), 23 (Bloomberg)
- Significant mention in independent coverage from secondary sources (reliable) 3 sources: 3 (Economic Times), 4 (The Mint), 20 (Outlook)
- Direct coverage from secondary sources but could be press release. (partially reliable) 2 sources: 13 (Times of India), 18 (Hindu)
- Primary sources (less reliable) 7 sources: 5 (Op-Ed by author - Indian Express), 8, 16 (Profile, Report - Chicago Booth), 9 (Paper by author - PLOS One), 14 (News - IIMB), 15 (News - King’s College), 17 (Report - US Congress)Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kiser (musician)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, with no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This is a followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exitsect: the attempted notability claim here is NMUSIC #6, "musician who has been in two independently notable bands", except Exitsect is one of the two bands despite there being no discernible evidence that they ever did anything more than briefly exist -- but this article otherwise says nothing else about him, literally going "he is a musician who has been in bands, the end", and the only footnote here is the same unreliable source that's the only footnote in Exitsect's article too. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, sourcing I find is ReverbNation, then social media, then streaming sites, then off into the ether... This just doesn't have enough sourcing to keep it, and the one source used now isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exitsect

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This was created in 2016 based entirely on a single unreliable source dated 2008, but has never had even one new word added to it since then about them doing anything (touring? recording?) — and one of the four stated members, whose standalone article incidentally fails to mention this band at all, died in 2015 (i.e. nine years ago, and one full year before this article even existed), yet this article still uses the present tense to describe his membership even though he was already dead, and thus clearly not still in the band even if they did still exist, in 2016.
The intended notability claim was clearly NMUSIC #6, "multiple independently notable members", but it's falling into the circular notability-loop trap that NMUSIC explicitly says to watch out for: the only member who has a strong claim to standalone notability as an individual is the dead guy, whose notability hinges on two other bands without mentioning this band at all, two of the other three members are clearly trying to wriggle through the "notable because they've been in this band that's notable because they were in it" loophole, and the third other member is staking his attempted standalone notability on one other band while again failing to mention this one at all, meaning three of the four members are also AFD candidates without clear or properly sourced claims to standalone notability.
So clearly this is a band that briefly existed in 2008, but there's no properly sourced evidence that they ever actually did anything besides briefly exist, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have reliably sourced evidence of actually doing something. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coriantumr (son of Omer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not eligible for WP:PROD due to unresolved talk page discussion about notability; should be resolved. No independent, reliable sourcing to suggest a standalone page is necessary. Fails the WP:GNG. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Latter Day Saints, and United States of America. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelino Da Costa Fernandes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar case to Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares, which was deleted here. Having caps is no longer a 'free pass' and Lino needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I could find nothing other than database sources like Soccerway and NFT, even when searching in conjunction with his country and Dili Leste. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edla Spencer-Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not shown to demostrate notability other than being married (now seperated) to someone who is notable (Jamie Spencer-Churchill, 12th Duke of Marlborough) DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Rabbit Studios

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail company notability. Limited Run Games was a division of this according to grepbeat.com, perhaps a redirect? IgelRM (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and North Carolina. IgelRM (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty rabbit and limited run were originally tied together as companies since limited run began as a division of mighty rabbit but they have more recently have separated into their own separately owned entities after limited run was purchased. where limited run is owned by embracer group, mighty rabbit remains independent. Due to this split, maintaining separate pages would likely be more accurate to their current standing 2603:6081:2100:229:C1A6:D1D4:D485:D2FD (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. But Limited Run Games has press coverage for notability, which Mighty Rabbit Studios unfortunately does not have sufficiently. IgelRM (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adecco General Staffing, Australia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Article read like an advertisement before that material was deleted, but I did a before search, and didn't come up with much aside from company profiles on different sites; nothing in the way of actual new releases, press, etc. Seems like this should be deleted OR redirected/merged to The Adecco Group. If I'm missing anything, I'll gladly rescind. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^{(my edits)} 18:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Karaikudi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This might work better as a category instead of a page. Charlie (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rezaul Kabir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines for Academicians WP:NACADEMICS. WP:NOTRESUME Charlie (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Finance, and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Brubaker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notablity not established; article appears to be wp:promo. Her name does appear in published sources but only in captions for her photography. The one piece of writing I found about her was about winning an honorable mention on pr.com, which is just a press release, not a published article. Yuchitown (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I saw this a few days ago while patrolling the NPP feed, and questioned the notability. She is a working commercial photographer who makes some very nice photographs, however she not a notable photographer per WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor the general notability guideline. She lived in two houses that have been written about, and she took some controversial photographs of a young girl. The sourcing consists of her own website, some blogs or blog-like coverage mostly about the young girl, or about her two houses. Other sources include a self-published Lulu "book", and photo caption mentions. This is not the type of in-depth significant coverage needed for an encyclopedia article; she does not have the type of track record that we normally see for a notable photographer. The article seems to be WP:PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Photography, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture, and California. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Source analysis does not show notability. I am not finding any better sources on the internet. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.danibrubaker.com/biography			photographer's own website	✘ No
https://www.remodelista.com/posts/updated-historic-casita-galisteo-new-mexico-for-sale/			article about the purcase and renovation of real estate on a real estate site.	✘ No
https://thejasminebrand.com/2011/08/07/is-a-10-year-old-model-wearing-no-shirt-or-heels-too-sexy/			article about Thylane Blondeau	✘ No
https://www.who.com.au/entertainment/most-beautiful-girl-in-the-world-who-is-thylane-blondeau/	?	?	article about Thylane Blondeau	✘ No
https://www.jezebel.com/fashion-industry-salivates-over-creepy-photos-of-10-yea-5827092			article about Thylane Blondeau	✘ No
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thylane-loubry-blondeau-mother_n_919501			article about Thylane Blondeau's mother	✘ No
https://anneofcarversville.com/body-politics/2011/8/3/thylane-lena-rose-blondeau-a-supermodel-in-the-making.html			article about Thylane Blondeau	✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=M1RwDwAAQBAJ	?	?	Google books listing for Britney Spears Is Coming-back! with no mention of Brubaker	✘ No
https://www.today.com/popculture/britney-her-own-best-publicist-wbna22715757			article about Britney Spears' children	✘ No
https://people.com/celebrity/sag-awards-2016-celebrities-in-peoples-photo-booth/			promotion of PEOPLE's Photo Booth with photo credit for Brubaker	✘ No
https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/ciara-new-album-baby-bump-harpers-bazaar-interview-7717081/			photo credit for Brubaker	✘ No
https://www.interviewmagazine.com/photographers/dani-brubaker			portfolio for Interview magazine	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep - Thank you for the feedback. I found the book and it's not a self-published. It appears to be someone who is inspired by her work. I have also found sources related to photos she took of Britney Spears in 2009. I have not added the sources yet as I am still reading over them as some appear to be contentious, so I am being cautious as what is sourced. I am not related in any form to the artist, so I can attest it is not a WP:PROMO as suggested. This article is within the scope of WP:VISUALARTS; WP:NEWMEXICO; along with several others. I would kindly ask you to reconsider and assist me with the page. I am new to Wiki editing, so would this better suited for WP:DRAFT?
Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lulu.com book is self published by the person who wrote it - Lulu is a self-publishing platform, not a reliable publishing house. Netherzone (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thank you for clarifying. Coolhandluke2022 (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The PR.com article seems to be all there is; I don't find anything else. Not listed in the Getty ULAN [53], so delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadambari Jethwani

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like previous AfD, no evidence support this individual's page meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Currently, sources cover this person only in the context of a single event which is a sexual harassment case which is still under investigation WP:BLP1E. WP:TOOSOON. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has at least 3 significant roles in notable productions tient and meets WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In line with WP:BEFORE, I checked IMDb, and it appears that none were lead roles. However, if reliable sources indicate otherwise, it could meet the WP:HEYMANN. Charlie (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not lead roles, perhaps, but significant roles, not minor. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWAD (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneeded per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation page disambiguates only one non-primary topic which is already linked in hatnote. Speedy deletion was declined ~~based on incorrect interpretation of G14~~. older ≠ wiser 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Disambiguations, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urutau (3D Printable Firearm)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of notability, no independent reliable sources about this. Being offered on some sites is not the same as having the necessary sourcing about the subject. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Technology, and Brazil. Fram (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that this subject has a significant amount of traction on social media websites like Twitter/X, Reddit, and even LinkedIn. This is difficult to directly cite due to its lack of centralization and login requirements. Still, I would like to think that this subject is notable given that it achieved its publishers' requirements for quality. That said, this subject is relatively new, and I am sure that, in time, more direct evidence of notability will become available. Any suggestions to rectify this in the meantime are appreciated. DreamWeav3r95 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with 3D printed firearm per WP:PRODUCT. Right now I lean heavier towards deletion as the only sources relevant to the actual gun itself are from what looks like the designer's own website- the other sources make no mention of the gun. Getting social media traction is not in and of itself a qualifier for notability. Archimedes157 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Guerrero

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion as WP:BLP1E: known only for appearing on La Academia and his romantic involvement with Yuridia. The article has existed for just over 18 years and the subject has yet to demonstrate any other notability. Attempts to find anything notable about the subject only resulted in tabloid-style information about Yuridia; the fact that she is notable does not confer notability onto him. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fully implemented {{subst:afd2}}, which had not been done. No opinion or comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, Advertising, Mexico, Arizona, and Idaho. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 16:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator. If he was really honored with "Edgar Guerrero Day" in Burley, Idaho, I can only find one independent mention of it in a local newspaper though he often repeats it in his own self-promotions. His minor placement in a reality show does not satisfy WP:BLP1E. The nominator is correct about his later personal life. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing sports films

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic fails WP:LISTCRIT, as there is no reliable source on how an items appears on the list. Interpretation of what is or is not a sports film comes off as failing WP:OR. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_79 in 2022 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#List of highest-grossing sports films here in 2024. Two years ago, the article was discussed for deletion, since then, per the second discussion topic this year it has been described as being in a worse state, specifically due to WP:OR, as there is no clear definition of what is or is not a sports film, the list is made up of material selected per choice by editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sports, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, these sources seem to discuss the articles subject [54], [55], [56]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while a quick Google search will supply anyone with similar lists, thats not the issue with the article, it's that definition of what the genre is is not clear, and the inclusion of films is up to debate. These lists don't even agree with each other, so how do we classify this? (one lists the Pixar film Cars as the highest grossing, while the other lists The Blind Side, list can't be properly built upon vague interpretations on highest grossing if there is statements like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously. My favorite ridiculous entry is Babe - sheepdog trials. Barry Wom (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep if there something that someone thinks should not be there or a film that should bring it up on the talk page and it can be discussed Fanoflionking3 (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that one user or another decides whether a film belongs on the list, it's that there is no general consensus on what type of film belongs. As it can't be properly classified due to a lack of significant coverage, the list is unsustainable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who first brought this up. This isn't an issue of "theres coverage for it" its that it is a definitional impossibility that conflicts with sports films and list of sports films. And it isn't something that can be fixed either by going through it and saying what is or is not a sports film based on sourcing because the whole thing is a failed exercise that cannot be undone. It's not even a split list as its contents contradict the other lists its supposedly split from. As an encyclopedia this article is so all over the place that while everyone here is debating Babe i'm noticing that according to it the top sports films of all time are Inside Out 2 and the entire Fast and the Furious series alongside the Dragon Ball anime. We could go into a deep philosophical discussion about "what is a sport anyway" but instead this article exists as a fork from sports movies for no reason. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bring up Babe is about sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport see about sheepdog trail being sports https://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/07/24/sheepdog_trials_feature.shtml Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not in denial of it being treated as a sport, what is and what isn't a sport film is less abundantly clear, so we can't just apply items like this. It's not clear what constitute the sports film genre per the links earlier that have different criteria. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Wp:NLIST (Sources covering that very topic exist, see GNews hits, for example) and can be considered a WP:SPLITLIST -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we need a definition for a sports film then (i always considered that t being about a sport event or training for a event) Babe (using this as example) is about babe training for a sheep dog trail then complete in the trail. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the genre is that is vague and unspecific. As shown by the two links above, there is no obvious connection between what is and what isn't. This is why an editor above may laugh at the idea of Babe being a sports film, while other may not. We can have our own personal definitions, but as that's not categorizable, we can't say what is higher grossing than the other. If a film were specifically about baseball we might be able to have some sort of list, but that would be relatively fringe. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings are clearly sports film (rockey for example), whiles others could be question (babe for example) using babe a done a sample of what we could do.Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could do something like this, we do not need to every film just any witch someone question. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rank	Film	Year	Worldwide gross	Ref	Sport(s)
1	Babe^[a]	1995	$254,134,910	^[2]	Sheepdog trial

I think the talk page would be more appropriate for this, as the genre does not seem to be very specific, I don't think a list like this can be really be built on any foundation without some more strict details of what the genre may include. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Notes

^ in the film Babe, Babe the pig trains to take part in a sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport^[1]

Keep as a notable stand-alone list topic even though the list's current contents and approaches are garbage. The problem is defining a sports film as opposed to films that have sports in part, like considering Forrest Gump a sports film is WP:UNDUE. I do oppose the more complex and cross-categorization lists that are embedded in this list article per WP:NLIST since some just get plain indiscriminate. I would support a hard-ass culling of this list. Regardless, there are reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies, so the scope is 100% tenable. We have to overcome the sloppiness of this draft. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there being reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies necessarily means that the scope is 100% tenable. If those sources do not agree what counts as sports movies and what does not, there does not exist a consensus scope, but an equivocation. Do the sources actually agree on the scope in a way that makes for list criteria that are clear-cut and enforceable here? TompaDompa (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the scope is 100% tenable. The problem is with how to present the details. We definitely have reliable sources writing about the highest-grossing sports films. Do we see these sources naming Forrest Gump and Babe as sports films? Or is it certain editors being ridiculously and erroneously pedantic here? Furthermore, reliable sources are not published with Wikipedia suitability in mind. So can we find a way to work with their coverage? Other approaches here could be to avoid an overall list and instead have various embedded lists by sports (e.g., highest-grossing baseball films). Or we could redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we have different ideas about what it means for the scope to be tenable. If the best we can do is redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table, I would not consider the scope to be tenable. I would not even consider the scope to be tenable if we have to avoid an overall list. I'm sure we can find somewhere on Wikipedia to include the words "highest-grossing sports film(s)" with some relevant content, but that's a much lower bar. TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll quote myself from roughly a year ago over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series: It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge.
As for what should be done about this list, specifically, if it is to be kept in any form whatsoever (be it as a stand-alone article or as part of some other article) it categorically needs to be demonstrated that it is actually possible to have inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA, or in other words that there actually exists some kind of consensus among the sources about what belongs on the list and what does not. What we currently have fails the requirement from WP:LISTCRITERIA to Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. That goes for a lot of these lists. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

References

Embassy of the United States, N'Djamena

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacking secondary sources specifically about the embassy. One source is about the death of the president of Chad, another is about various countries reducing their diplomatic presence due to fighting. Does not meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor G. Dodig

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refs are routine coverage, interviews. Non-rs whos who. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 14:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kollam Sailors

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non notable team in the Kerala Cricket League. 3 teams from this league are at a current AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleppey Ripples, but this article was created in mainspace anyway- after being rejected at AFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Kerala. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other deletion discussion and this nominator's rationale. While there is coverage, it is all secondary. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Juliana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bit part actor. Lots of social media driven puff piece, clickbait and paid placement article but fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Medicine, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bouheida

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to add verifying this information. Boleyn (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this Bouhdida? Geschichte (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bouhdida Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English immigrants to America

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The scope of this list is too broad; there are 212 people in just Category:English emigrants to Massachusetts Bay Colony alone. There must be hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia articles of people who were English emigrants to the North American colonies. toweli (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Lists, United Kingdom, England, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, what a baffling topic. Reywas92^Talk 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 2160 people total listed in Category:English emigrants to the United States and its two subcategories. Someone could copy all of those over easily enough, but unless you make columns to list additional information, it'd be useless. As the list is now, it shows no purpose that a category doesn't do. Dream Focus 10:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covet Fashion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VICE is major significant coverage, and I found additional SIGCOV here in this physical book, but Venture Beat seems more like an interview/primary source. I am not seeing GNG being passed here. If others discover more, I am willing to change my opinion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redon Danaj

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google News, yield no result Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dorr

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions and snippets. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDK College of Engineering

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that i could find are either primary, routine, or school/college databases. Recommend Redirect to Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, India, and Maharashtra. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a nice solution. Not notable college as stand-alone page. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor and unreliable source and page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Chropovský

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another long-time stub about a Slovak footballer named Matúš, he has only played a few matches in the second tier that lasted a total of 584 minutes so far. Secondary sources from my searches did not show any significant coverage of him. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavnagar Terminus railway station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much coverage beyond that available in database sites. recommend Redirect to Surendranagar–Bhavnagar line. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and Gujarat. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Xegma(talk) 13:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A large, 144-year-old railway station serving a city of 643,000 people is extremely unlikely not to be notable. Per WP:SYSTEMIC could we ever see a station like this in a western country being deleted, however much coverage it had? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that the station is quite old (it is easy to see it mentioned in the 19th century books), but all my attempts to find RS for WP:V failed. In particular, the reference "Passenger Amenities Details ... Raildrishti" was a disaster (no information at all, just the promotional links, I had to remove it). Unless someone can point me to at least a short coherent text about the station, Redirect. There are tons of articles about Indian stations like that, all adorned by the links to Raildrishti.in. Викидим (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historic railway station you say? Coverage here [57], [58], [59] and [60]! Love these kinds of articles. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was published by the railway, but it's a decent source [61], a bit here [Bhavnagar railway station history], briefly mentioned here [62]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the books I've seen and referred to above (wrongfully as the "19th century" book). I had failed to locate any coherent information about the station there, however. Can you point me to a particular page? --Викидим (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jama Masjid metro station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. Fails WP:GNG. Recommend Redirect to Violet Line (Delhi Metro). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and Delhi. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Xegma(talk) 13:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 03:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the adjacent stations the sourcing situation seems similar for most articles for this line. Is there any particular reason this article was singled out specifically? Jumpytoo Talk 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZWCAD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This software page does not comply with WP:PRODUCT. It has only routine not sustained coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Software, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Danaj

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only played in a semi-pro second-tier league, so fails WP:SPORTCRIT - unless there are sources. This seems much too short to be significant, this bears a Wordpress logo (blog) whereas this is a match report mostly made up of quotes. It's about two people, Ruben and his brother Redon Danaj. I have notability doubts about Redon Danaj as well, otherwise he might be a merge target. Geschichte (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 European Congress of Mathematics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable instance of an academic conference published from Articles for Creation by User:TakuyaMurata (hence not sending to Speedy or Prod. Suggested outcome is a delete, or merge to the parent article. Sadads (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously, not every conference is notable but this one is fairly large so probably notable enough for Wikipedia. I get some other editors might feel differently. But I think we can at least agree European Congress of Mathematics is notable enough. Not sure whether my name is related to the question of the notability: if a concern is the conflict of interest, I am not involved in the conference. —- Taku (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you wouldn't merge this to the parent article? Academic conferences of 2000 people are not exactly.... prominent or of lasting public interest unless they are connected to something notable (i.e. a public declaration, something like a newsworthy public event (i.e. a bombing) etc). Its far different than conferences that include large negotations or notable outcomes (thinking something like 2017 United Nations Climate Change Conference), Sadads (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am not against the merger, although if the article were to be merged, it needs to be shortened greatly, obviously. As for the notability, I don’t think we should be discussing the significance, which is different. Because of the Internet, a conference such as this clearly has lost some of significance (since we can communicate much easily online today). The notability, on the other hand, should be determined by a relative position within mathematics. In terms of size, the conference is second only to International Congress of Mathematicians. We should draw a line somewhere and my view is that this conference would cross that line, since we can’t quite argue ICM is the only notable conference in mathematics, which seems too high a bar. —- Taku (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Mathematics, Europe, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European Congress of Mathematics. Information like the date the application deadline was announced or a tweet of pablum from a local politician is not encyclopedia material. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Tharwat Hassan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Associate Professor with an h-factor of 12 and no major awards. No evidence that he comes close to satisfying any of the WP:NPROF criteria. While notability was challenged in a tag by Kj cheetham in Feb 2022, it appears it was not followed up on. He has somehow slipped through the normal review process that would avoid non-notable academics. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Elias

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable AI founder, without a significant claim of seperate interest - -not sure if we should roll up into the AI company Sadads (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, Technology, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already an article for Qloo, his company, and I see very little coverage focusing on him as opposed to the company. Article reads as very promotional and there may be a conflict-of-interest issue as several accounts in the edit history have exclusively edited/created this article. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qloo. This bio article falls short of notability. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qloo - as @StewdioMACK points out he's covered in the context of Qloo. Even the FastCompany article cited for Tastedive pivots quickly back to Qloo and just uses him as a company mouthpiece Until/unless he attains notability of his own he can be discussed there. Oblivy (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Qloo as a viable ATD per Oblivy. Sal2100 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bou Lahrath

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sources to verify this information is correct. Boleyn (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulahrath Geschichte (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GAZETTEER. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn: Communes in Mauritania are significant administrative subdivisions with mayors, deputy mayors and councillors. It is a waste of everyone's time to keep nominating these articles for deletion. It would take less time and would be much more useful if you would expand these stubs.

To find a solid source for any of these communes, check the foot of the article, where you will see.

Click on the link to Communes of Mauritania, scroll down, and you will see

Official site

Click on that link, click "ok" in the search box, and you will get a list of all the communes. Click on the link for Bou Lahreth and you see information like

BOU LAHRATH

Région : ASSABA

Commune Collectivités urbaines à vocation agricole, pastorale ou agropastorale

Le Maire : Zeine O/ Ahmed Salem O/ Kebady PRDS

Les Maires Adjoints : Ahmed Salem O/ Salem, El Hareth O/ Nouh, Ahmed O/ Bilal, Mohmed Mahmoud O/ Youba, Habiboullah O/ Mohamed Mensour

Les Conseillers : Abdellahi O/ Naji O/ Khouna ( décedé le27 avril2002 ) Demab O/ Mohamed Radhi Sidi Mahmoud O/ Sidi Mohamed Moustapha O/ Mohamed Habib Mohamedou Naji O/ Outhmane Hadrami O/ Mohamed Abdel Wehab El Ghassem O/ Mohamed Jiddou Mohamed Nouh O/ Mohamed Salem Brahim O/ Mohamed Inejih O/ Bilal Boubacar O/ Salem

Yes, it is indeed a commune of Mauritania in the Assaba Region. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep but might need to be moved to Boulahrath. Geschichte (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red (slur)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary WP:INCDAB. 2 of the 3 entries could be summarized by Red (political adjective), which itself redirects to Red#In politics. Meanwhile, Redskin or Red people aren't listed in Red (disambiguation), so its importance is unclear. I don't really see potential for a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Disambiguations. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be a point to this disambiguation. What's it disambiguating? Nobody would type 'Red (slur)' in, or create a link to this page. They'd just go to Red which should handle the disambiguation, which it does through a link at the top. --Here2rewrite (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MOS:DABSHORT violation. Neither wikt:red nor Republican_Party_(United_States) attests the "Supporter of" part of "Supporter of the Republican Party (United States)", and I question whether it doesn't simply mean just GOP, which is sourced in Republican_Party_(United_States)#Name_and_symbols. Sources can be found for the other two, but usually don't go in a DAB. Also, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"MOS:DABSHORT violation" can be addressed by relabeling the page as a set index article (instead of a DAB page), so it isn't a strong reason to delete. Jruderman (talk) 12:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's just misnamed, not inherently problematic. Instead, assuming this AfD concludes without deletion, let's:
1. Relabel the page from WP:Disambiguation to WP:Set index, and
2. Either:
  - Start a move discussion to a more neutral title such as "Red (political epithet)" or "Red (politics)" or "Red in politics", OR
  - Start a merge discussion into Red#In_politics. — Jruderman (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, but "politics" is wrong, since the ethnic one isn't politics (except in a sense too broad for disambiguation) purposes. Just "epithet" would work better. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A rename to "Red (epithet)" would address the neutrality and precision concerns, but not the concerns about necessity: it is not clear how readers would land at this specific page, rather than, say, "Red (disambiguation)" or the Wiktionary page for "Red".
What do you think of these alternatives?
- Merge and/or redirect to Red (disambiguation)#Politics
- Merge and/or redirect to Red (disambiguation), as a new section #Epithet
- Merge and/or redirect to Red#In politics
- Merge and/or redirect to Political_colour#Red
- Redirect to Redskin, the only one that's really a slur, leaving the modern left/right meanings (often neutral but sometimes used as epithets) for other pages.
Jruderman (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly no consensus and discussion ongoing with lots of options brought up. Just a reminder that an AFD can't close with a Move closure, if that is what you want, choose Keep and then start a move discussion afterwards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Ringbeater

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find reliable significant secondary coverage. Only found this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/American_Pigeon_Journal/gadOAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Belgian+Ringbeater%22&dq=%22Belgian+Ringbeater%22&printsec=frontcover (trivial mention) and this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Pigeon_Breeds/WECq0AEACAAJ?hl=en although I cannot access the latter to confirm if it actually mentions the breed or not. I'm not aware of any active pigeon fanciers on Wikipedia to ask about this either. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Turns out that some more sources pop up when searching for the Dutch names, particularly "Ringlsager Belge": [63], [64], [65], and here's the website of a German club entirely devoted ot them (go figure): [66]. So I think we are good WRT availability of potential sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these websites are self-published as far as I can tell. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that an extended definition by a national fancier club constitutes a reliable source on the breed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fancier clubs are self-published and non-independent. They're only really useful for basic information such as the breed standard. They don't satisfy the independent requirement of WP:GNG even ignoring their self-published nature. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak keep~~ : Coverage in the American Pigeon Journal from 1983, [67], should have enough sourcing with the others listed above. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom had found the same source I did, so it's just not enough for coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Mary Sunshine

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only mentions. None of the links in the article are reliable sources. toweli (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Washington. toweli (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Palmiter Bajorek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have checked many references and find them to be a mixture of passing mentions and what Bajorek says. Otherwise this reads like a resumé. WP:ADMASQ and failed WP:BIO. The whole swathe of alleged references is WP:BOMBARD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that several of the sources in the article are primary and that others only make brief mentions of her but she is covered in a sufficient number of secondary sources to support notability. I am no expert in AI-related voice technology but some of the awards appear to be significant.--Ipigott (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Technology, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riddlesdown railway station

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable train station per WP:NTRAINSTATION. Cannot find WP:SIGCOV on Google News or Google Books. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand we currently have an article for every National Rail station in the UK. It would be bizarre to then have one missing from that set. Garuda3 (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there was consensus that stations aren't inherently notable but I'd suggest wider discussion may be needed for if this is the only one we shouldn't have an article for. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a railway station on Great Britain's national railway system that has regular (hourly) timetabled service, and has been open for 97 years. Why nominate this one for deletion, and not one of the other 2,500+ stations in Great Britain? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scribe (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Routine funding rounds (WP:SERIESA), paid press releases. Lacks direct in-depth coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. StrongDeterrence (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Smith (entrepreneur)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tech entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG as it stands. StrongDeterrence (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Computing, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

César Grajales (political commentator)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A lot of paid coverage; I don't think there is any in-depth coverage about him. Fails WP:GNG. StrongDeterrence (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Politics, Colombia, Florida, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, else Delete seems to be created by a WP:SPA and should go through the AfC process before being created. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America Mortgages

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a lot of clean-up of spammy references, there is nothing left about this mortgage company. Fails WP:NCORP. StrongDeterrence (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Real estate WP:PROMO trash indeed; this neither appeals to a regular reader or an investor looking for useful information about the company; always a bad sign when the parent company's article is non-existent, thus I can declare to @RandomBeat: that you're bad at this paid article placement thing. Nate • (chatter) 20:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well,RandomBeat is 0 for three when creating articles, perhaps some time reading the various Teahouse articles would help? Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You know a company is non-notable when you search with their name in quotation marks (to bring up that exact term) and still nothing for the company comes up... Bank of America is all I find. Literally zero coverage in RS, or in anything about this company. Very much not meeting CORP. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Gottfried

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than this article, I don't think there is any in-depth coverage about this real estate developer. Fails WP:GNG as it stands. StrongDeterrence (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Businesspeople, Environment, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Moon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notability, virtually no hits from RS in Google, seems to only exist to promote the article's subject Fastily 08:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Photography, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Services

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can find very little evidence for the continued existence of this unit. The only provided reference is A) dead and B) a primary source.

The one evidence I can find for existence of this "SCD 4" is this newsletter from 2005!

In any case, even if it exists, does not seem to be particularly notable and hence does not warrant an article Elshad (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (original creator many years ago!) With some better sourcing, this could have been notable, but the lack of any current useful sourcing undermines any real claim to utility, and it seems it does not exist in this form anyway. ninety:one 13:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it looks not notable and on the edge of mystery. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ per WP:SNOW. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 G7 Games

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, and no actual evidence that this event is taking place. WP:TOOSOON also applies. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero indication these even exist, let alone notable. At best unsourced and WP:TOOSOON KylieTastic (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suspected hoax. Geschichte (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find any information about these games in a Google search, so I am not sure if they even exist. This could probably qualify for speedy deletion as a G3 or A7. Frank Anchor 13:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Sounds like a Hoax Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally basing a sporting event on the economic status of its members is a bad idea for planning and competitive purposes; this is clearly MADEUP. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as a blatant hoax. C F A 💬 00:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any information on the topic and it has no sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If there is any significant coverage of Lady Cardigan in reliable sources, I am not seeing it either in this article or in my Google Books search. All I see are genealogy compilations and that is indeed what the article amounts to for the most part. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't deny that we don't (or I don't) know much about the countess, but she was a Lady of the Bedchamber, for which we have a category. I feel we're a bit dismissive of female roles in society in past centuries, and that's one of the many reasons Wikipedia's gender balance is poor. Deb (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree with Deb. She had a relatively notable role in court. I wish someone with more knowledge or expertise could step forward and improve the article a little bit. Keivan.f^Talk 11:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But all three of us know that which role she held (and only for a few months, if I may add) is not what determines encyclopedic notability. The criterion (WP:GNG) is whether she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far I do not see evidence of significant coverage. I also think that having a biography with 95% of its content being who the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law were is not doing much at all for the state of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-) You don't think that having all those children was an achievement? Deb (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite a historian who considers it an achievement, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can measure a woman's level of notability by the number of children she has given birth to. But if indeed it was a notable achievement then one can cite a source and include the relevant info! Keivan.f^Talk 21:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Deb Killuminator (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminator, could you please explain how Deb has demonstrated that the article passes WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject")? Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way the article itself is written does not make the subject look notable enough. As nominator explains, writing about the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law, etc., does not make her notable enough for a standalone encyclopedia article. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trying to search on newspapers.com [68] but i can't access. 58.136.119.76 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and because she was the central character of a notable painting, England: Richmond Hill, on the Prince Regent's Birthday. Women of her time and station had a lot of influence without any formal power. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I added fascinating information about her family connections to the Charge of the Light Brigade and other famous descendants in British history. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that addresses WP:GNG concerns, i.e. the issue of her not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Her family connections and famous descendants mean nothing; see WP:INVALIDBIO. The only reason to have this article is if you, or someone, can prove that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm very conscious of the need to address the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, but it should be achieved by focusing on women scientists, doctors, engineers, activists and leaders. Not by keeping an article on someone who fails WP:NBIO that is virtually entirely describing a woman through the context of her husband, brothers, father and many children. Frankly, that's an insult to the goal of improving women's biographies on Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was the Lady of the Bedchamber during her time, a notable and high-ranking social position in the palace. This role may be equivalent to the Sang-bok rank in the inner court of Joseon. The Sang-bok rank in Korea could pass WP:NPOL as it was one of the highest positions in the Joseon inner court. The Korean monarchy had two courts: the royal court (which functioned like a parliament) and the inner court (the court of the palace). The internal court, headed by the queen, wielded both political and judicial power. However, I'm unsure if the Lady of the Bedchamber had influence similar to that of the Sang-bok. Nonetheless, Lady of the Bedchamber served as like the queen's chief secretary, which could be considered notable, and she was also a subject of royal artwork. Therefore, I believe her role is significant enough to warrant inclusion. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And which sources discuss her in detail as a proof of how exalted her position was? Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The woman of the bedchamber is Her Majesty's right-hand woman and plays a key role in making decisions about social engagements. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking about the position. I am asking about the woman who is the subject of this article. You claim that the position she held was "a notable and high-ranking social position". Very well. She must be thoroughly discussed in the sources then. Where are these sources that discuss Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan, in great detail? Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Chao

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Taiwan. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ji (surname 蓟)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable surname (only one notable individual with this surname, who probably died 1800 years ago and who has no page on enwiki); material can be merged into Ji (surname). We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless a stronger reason for deletion can be provided. The article currently cites multiple sources – is there something wrong with them? It doesn't make sense to merge to what is effectively a disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Mx. Granger. What's wrong with articles using Chinese disambiguators? C F A 💬 22:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are entirely lists and it fails WP:NNAME. I'm failing to see how the article passes WP:NOTDICT. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first source is just a list of surnames from 1,000 years ago. It is a trivial mention and improper use of primary sources. The second source doesn't mention the surname, I can't really tell if the third source is reliable or not, it appears to be user generated but it may just be how the site is presented. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project Kuwait

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see that the article meets the notability policy; it's just a plan and has not been implemented in reality.-- فيصل (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Kuwait. فيصل (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Petroleum industry in Kuwait, which was partially sourced with a link to the Central Intelligence Agency. Written the same year as this one, it's much more clear and concise about the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that there is no mention of Project Kuwait at Petroleum industry in Kuwait at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vandenberg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Only primary sources provided, a search for his name and birth name yielded only namesakes in Google news, books and Australian database Trove. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Netherlands, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Representing nation does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, per Liz's note - I am unable to access the last two sources (the ones from British Newspaper Archive) and cannot assess those. StartGrammarTime (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:StartGrammarTime
https://wwosbackup.proboards.com/thread/852/peter-vandenberg	?	Proboards forum	List of stats	✘ No
http://speedwayplus.com/Southampton1961.shtml		?	One picture	✘ No
https://britishspeedway.co.uk/docs/Ultimate_Index_1929-2022.pdf		? Hosted on British Speedway site, but unclear if it's been vetted	Extremely brief statistics	✘ No
https://britishspeedway.co.uk/history-archive/			Page is a list of archives; search for 'Vandenberg' has no results	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep for now. The two more promising references are missing from the source review. Historical figure. Absolutely no BLP concern. gidonb (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the source analysis doesn't instill confidence in a Keep. Any rebuttal to it? Please provide the sources you think are missing from the table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @StartGrammarTime , as they undertook the source review but didn't cast a !vote. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my source table. Thanks LibStar for the ping. My hope was that having seen the source table, someone would be able to add a source that could demonstrate he met GNG. The sources I cannot access are being used to support only extremely minimal information, which makes me believe that there is no other information available in those sources either. Without any information on him from reliable sources, he cannot be notable and thus I must agree with the nominator. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Serbia destinations

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO. In reality this list is mostly services the airline doesn't present fly, does not fly year-round, or charter flights. It is therefore not a list of flights that Air Serbia actually offered in August 2023.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like aeroroutes.net and www.exyuaviation.com/, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Serbia. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of these WP:NOT arguments are wrong and are inconsistent with the most recent RfC. First, third party reliable sources frequently cover Air Serbia destinations, even in Croatian [69]. This even quotes Vučić about a specific route. Sourcing is not an issue here. The catalogue argument fails because destinations are not "services" in the sense of another business - where an airline flies is clearly essential to understanding the airline, unlike an old style catalogue which is trying to sell you products. WP:IINFO doesn't apply because there's nothing indiscriminate about this at all. This is a valid list and while the sourcing could be improved, there's absolutely no reason to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

”per the recent RFC” - care to give us a link here? I’m not aware of a new RFC having closed in this field lately. Having checked on VPP, the Aviation project page, and the WP:NOT talk page I also don’t see one. Regarding the sources you raise, the Jurnarji List source is based entirely on Croation Aviation Portal, apparently a blog, the link to which is 404 but an archived version shows the information apparently to come entirely from the airline since no source is cited. Quotes from government officials hardly matter for notability of what is the state airline.

I also note that this is essentially the same argument that you've made multiple times in a long string of AFDs (15 out of the last 15), all of which closed delete/redirect/merge. FOARP (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No - I don't have time to try to save all of these articles right now, but it was the RfC which was appealed which basically said this sort of information is fine to include in the encyclopedia if WP:DUE is mentioned. I also think you're absolutely wrong on policy here, and whenever these are opened up to the community there's never been a clear consensus to delete. Some of these articles do need to be deleted on sourcing grounds, so your 15 for 15 argument is worthless. I also don't know how you can argue Jutarnji isn't reliable, either, it's the second largest news portal in Croatia. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t know what RFC you’re talking about. I suspect it’s one of the ones about Airports, which are obviously not the same topic as Airlines. FOARP (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is not a resource for doing business so NOTCATALOGUE doesn't apply. It is well defined and of limited scope so it is not indiscriminate. Sources do cover the topic, and even if alternative formats for presentation may be better, it does not need to be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB. This is just the airline's route map in list form. Also an exhaustive list of the places this carrier has flown to since it was founded nearly a century ago is a clear case of an indiscriminate collection of information. Sunnya343 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Per Reywas92. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Per Reywas92. Боки ☎ ✎ 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge We should merge these information into the airline's article, as per others said,they don't violate it, in addition, we need to stop trying to have airlines destinations list deleted because Wikipedia is the only place that has these information, it is a big mistake that the other ones got deleted, especially the one for Lufthansa, United Airlines and American Airlines, if we really don't need these to exist as a article, we should have merged the airlines destinations list into the airline article itself, a pity that the ones that got deleted was no longer available.... Metrosfan (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At a minimum, it's not clear whether editors prefer keeping or merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge per Reywas92. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 13:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What Merge target are people proposing? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article to be merged to Air Serbia Metrosfan (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's also an acceptable merge target for me, if we must merge. FOARP (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Pmbma (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that many years ago, somebody thought the Air Serbia page was a good candidate for being split into two pages, and had no idea that in 2024 people would then see the List of Air Serbia destinations page as a candidate for deletion. If we cannot tolerate having a second page, then better to have one large page instead of deleting content. Pmbma (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I love you guys but you are making closure very difficult with all of these "Keep/Merge" opinions. These are two very different outcomes. Are you putting them in order, like Keep, 1st choice, Merge, 2nd choice or are most of you saying "Keep/Merge" because that is what other participants said or are you saying that you don't have a preference and either outcome is fine and (shudder!) the closer should decide? Because that is called a "super vote" and hell rains down from the sky when that is suspected of happening. So, please, which is it, Keep or Merge? Like an election, unless we are going ranked voting, you must choose one and only one outcome. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote Keep/Merge because my intention is to retain information, but do not really care whether we keep this page, or merge it in with another page. Perhaps I should have written my vote as "Retain Information Content". The tendency years ago on wikipedia was to split a single large page into two or more pages to keep the size of any single page modest. It seems that the tendency now is that it's better to have one large page instead of multiple pages because that way it keeps better to the rules of what page titles are permitted on wikipedia. Ideally I'd like to keep this page because otherwise it makes the Air Serbia page rather large, but if this page has to disappear, then I think it better we just merge the contents of this page into its "parent" Air Serbia page. I favour Keep only very slightly over Merge - I don't really care which of Keep or Merge is the eventual outcome. My worst case option is that we permanently remove the information on this page from wikipedia. Pmbma (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Air Serbia#Destinations – If the information, can be sourced by reliable secondary sources talking about the destinations as a group or set, not just primary sources talking about new destinations that will soon be added, and also be put into context, then I would support a merge. However, as it stands now, the majority of the sources, albeit a few, mostly agreeing with the nomination's section on the sources used, do not help establish the list's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, some wiki-editors have preferred an "official" source - namely the Air Serbia website - rather than an independent source. Perhaps we as wikipedians should do a better job about educating people on the merits of an independent source versus a primary source, but saying angry words to volunteers doesn't usually end well. :-)

I've added a reliable secondary source for many of the destinations. Haven't got every single destination because I don't have time to search the web for hours, but what I have added should mean we have independent and non-dead-link source coverage of about 85% or more of casesPmbma (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of intercity bus stops in South Dakota

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NLIST. Also nominating the sister article List of intercity bus stops in North Dakota for the same reason. I found mostly maps of the stops themselves, though I fail to see how the bus stops in a list format provide notability. Conyo14 (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, North Dakota, and South Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Kazakhstan, Ottawa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article merely confirms it exists with its own website as the only source. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kazakhstan, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP --92.77.57.69 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada–Kazakhstan relations: fails GNG. C F A 💬 22:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is almost completely devoid of content, effectively just a directory listing. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect or opposition to one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mexican judicial reform

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline, but seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Sourcing is heavily primary. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, seems notable to me. Might be somewhat short, could expand scope to any Mexican judicial reform, not only 2024. Currently Judiciary of Mexico does not discuss any reforms. HudecEmil (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that though this is not López Obrador's first attempt at judicial reform, this is the most significant. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, you need edit more guys make their big protest JNOJ1423 (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it is notable and has been especially prominent in Mexico since the 2024 elections. The proposed reform has also caused protests and strikes (which that could easily be its own article) and has attracted attention from other countries (U.S. and Canada). The article should be expanded, covering the proposal and reactions to it (foreign, domestic, and financial reactions). EchoLuminary (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal Disfigurement

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band fails WP:BAND with no coverage in reliable sources. GTrang (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is WP:TOOSOON to be charitable. The formation of the band got a few notices in the metal press because the singer is known for being in a better-known band previously, but this article tries to latch onto that band's notability in violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. Otherwise the article is dependent on unreliable social media chatter because the reliable media has not reported on the band or its releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources, doesn't pass WP:NBAND, large number of the sources are from Facebook or Reddit. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no apparent notability yet and has only released a single independent album that had little to no coverage. cyberdog958^Talk 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Inside The Playoffs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no results aside from the IMDb result, which is not reliable. Conyo14 (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete or Redirect to NASCAR on TNT. There isn't even a press release from TruTV announcing the existence of this show. This is a case where I would have done a bold move to Draft before taking it to AFD. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Redrecting it to NASCAR on TNT is a good idea. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Motorsport, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously sourcing solely to IMDb doesn't bode well, but the news portion of IMDb is all aggregated from other sites… and I doubt the original/actual source, TV Everyday, is what we're looking for either for notability or significant coverage. The program is probably going to be a relatively run-of-the-mill NASCAR news and analysis show anyway. (I'm not sure there's sufficient potential notability here to justify drafitification or sufficiently-reliable sourcing to even mention anywhere on Wikipedia; I also don't see this falling under any speedy deletion criteria, since there was a comment to that end.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NASCAR on TNT - this program appears to be on the truTV schedule for Sept 5 at 7PM ET, but that's all I could find. Limmidy (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone Academy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find sufficient WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSCHOOL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete need more significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources for notability --Loewstisch (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Fragility

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article covers a definition of a term used by one person, it does not appear to be a broader subject of academic discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term doesn't appear exclusive to Loury. McWhorter uses it (here, here), and Steele uses it in a very different context. Regardless, I'm not finding coverage of the concept itself, to the extent it exists, or evidence that it's a unified concept among the scholars who have deployed it. I also don't see an appropriate redirect to White fragility since the article does not currently use the term in discussing McWhorter's criticism of DiAngelo. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Japan, Kyiv

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, most of these are used to confirm previous ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can you confirm what kind of WP:BEFORE search you conducted and how you went about identifying and assessing any Ukrainian and Japanese language sources as part of that? DCsansei (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: looks notable enough to me, and iI see sources in the History section. A redirect to the list of diplomatic missions of Japan or to Uk-Jp relations is totally warranted anyway. But I am really not convinced by the rationale of this nomination (especially when the majority of the sources are NOT about the ambassadors). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominated the article, majority of sources were about the ambassadors [70]. This has subsequently changed with new additions. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I should havec checked that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there additional assessment of the newly added sources? And does LibStar's original nomination still stand? If not, we can close this, but if so we can continue to discuss whether this article meets the general notability guidelines
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a few sources which should take this mission over the GNG and see plenty more. Appears that there was no WP:BEFORE search including Japanese sources. I'm not competent in Ukranian but my guess is that there would be additional sources found if a WP:BEFORE was done including Ukranian sources. DCsansei (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher Myers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage, all sources are databases or non-independent Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Young player who has recently made his debut, likely more sources will be available in near future. Mn1548 (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are really arguing for here seems to be a draftification. We can't have articles that don't have significant coverage at the moment (WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTAL). Geschichte (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Professional NRL player who debuted and scored points (conversions and tries), sources present and can be added, a lot of other similar articles of young NRL players have less sources (e.g. Jesse McLean) ChampsRT (Profile • Talk) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Rasolofonirina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [71], [72], [73] look like decent coverage to. I'd say that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. I've expanded the article based on these sources. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robby.is.on doing a Heymann standard job with the article. Geschichte (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hi-yon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it for now. Xegma(talk) 13:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hyok-son

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahir Dakenov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POET, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. No source to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no published sources yet. Xegma(talk) 13:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Plumb

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her career as theater actress and educator seems rather notable and her contributions to TV series/film might be seen as prolific. I haven’t searched for better sources so this is a weak keep. Would a redirect to the Personal life section in the article about her sister be an acceptable ATD? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and California. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Joya Early College High School

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This school has insufficient coverage to be notable. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, hence, fail WP:GNG. A possible ATD is La Joya Independent School District. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to La Joya High School Same building, same personnel, just a different 'grade'. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Texas. CptViraj (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IILM University Greater Noida

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This degree-awarding institution has insufficient coverage to be notable. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, hence, fail WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. CptViraj (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/07/24/sheepdog_trials_feature.shtml

[Babe-3] "Babe".

[Babe-2] the film Babe, Babe the pig trains to take part in a sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport^[1]

[a]

[2]

[1]

v t e Communes of Mauritania
Urban Industrial	Arafat Benichab Choum Dar-Naim El Mina Kiffa Ksar Nouadhibou Riyad Rosso Sebkha Tevragh-Zeina Teyarett Toujouonine Zouérat
Urban Agricultural	Adel Bagrou Aere Mbar Aghchorguitt Ain Ehel Taya Aioun Ajar Aleg Amourj Aoueinat Zbel Aoujeft Arr Atar Azgueilem Tiyab Bababé Bagrou Barkeol Bassiknou Bethet Meit Boghé Bokkol Bou Lahrath Bougadoum Bouheida Bouhdida Boulenouar Bouly Boumdeid Bousteila Boutilimitt Cheggar Chinguitti Dafor Daghveg Dar El Barka Dionaba Djeol Djiguenni El Ghabra El Ghaire Fassala Foum Gleita Ghabou Gouraye Gueller Guerou Hamod Hassichegar Jidr-El Mouhguen Kaédi Kamour Kankossa Keur-Macene Kobeni Koumbi Saleh Lahraj Legrane Leouossy Lexelba Maghama Magta-Lahjar Male Mbagne Mbalal Mbout Mederdra Monguel Moudjeria Nbeika Ndiago Néma Niabina Noual Ouad Naga Ouadane Oualata Oueid Jrid Ould Yenge Rdheidhi R' Kiz Sangrave Sélibaby Soudoud Tachott Tamchekett Tawaz Tékane Tichit Tidjikja Tiguent Timbedra Timzinn Tintane Touil Tufunde Cive Wahatt Woumpou
Rural Agricultural	Agharghar Aghoratt Agoueinit Ain Savra Ain Varba Ajoueir Aouleiguatt Aweintat I Bagodine Baidiyam Bangou Bareina Beileguet Litama Beneamane Beribavatt Blajmil Boeir Tores Bouanze Boubacar Ben Amer Boutalhaya Chelkhet Tiyad Daw Devaa Dhar Diadjibine Gandéga Dielwar Dodol Cover Doueirara Edbaye El Hejaj Edebaye Ehl Guelay Egjert El Aria El Khatt El Medah El Megve El Melgua El Mouyessar El Verea Elb Address Feireni Ganki Gasra El Barka Ghlig Ehel Boye Gogui Guateidoume Hassi Abdallah Hassi Attilla Hassi Ehel Ahmed Bechna Hassimhadi Hsey Tine Inal Jreif Kouroudjel Ksar el Barka Laftah Lahrach Leghligue Lehreijat Lehseira Lekhcheb Leweynatt Lexeiba Maaden Mabrouk I Mabrouk II Megva Melga Melzem Teichett Modibougou N' Savenni Nebaghia Nere Walo Nouamghar Nouamleine Nteichitt Ntrguent Ouad Amour Ould Birem Ouldmbouni Oum Avnadech Ou, Lahyadh, Radhi Sagne Sani Sava Soufa Taguilalett Tarenguet Ehel Moul Tektaka Tenaha Ten Hamadi Tensigh Tikobra Tinghadej Tmeimichatt Tokomadji Toutel Voulaniya Vrea Litama Wali